From cce4cbc9ec9bac54dc4d8b214b7efee585034ffc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: rigelrozanski Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:02:26 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] expand on shortcomings of the system --- docs/spec/distribution/overview.md | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/spec/distribution/overview.md b/docs/spec/distribution/overview.md index 7b912f282..e4308a21d 100644 --- a/docs/spec/distribution/overview.md +++ b/docs/spec/distribution/overview.md @@ -36,20 +36,32 @@ Fees are pooled within a global pool, as well as validator specific proposer-reward pools. The mechanisms used allow for validators and delegators to independently and lazily withdraw their rewards. -As a part of the lazy computations, each validator and delegator holds an -accumulation term which is used to estimate what their approximate fair portion -of tokens held in the global pool is owed to them. This approximation of owed -rewards would be equivalent to the active distribution under the situation that -there was a constant flow of incoming reward tokens every block. Because this -is not the case, the approximation of owed rewards will deviate from the active -distribution based on fluctuations of incoming reward tokens as well as timing -of reward withdrawal by other delegators and validators from the reward pool. +## Shortcomings + +As a part of the lazy computations, each delegator holds an accumulation term +specific to each validator which is used to estimate what their approximate +fair portion of tokens held in the global pool is owed to them. + +``` +entitlement = delegator-accumulation / all-delegators-accumulation +``` + +Under the circumstance that there were constant and equal flow of incoming +reward tokens every block, this distribution mechanism would be equal to the +active distribution (distribute individually to all delegators each block). +However this is unrealistic so deviations from the active distribution will +occur based on fluctuations of incoming reward tokens as well as timing of +reward withdrawal by other delegators. + +If you happen to know that incoming rewards are about significantly move up, +you are incentivized to not withdraw until after this event, increasing the +worth of your existing _accum_. ## Affect on Staking Charging commission on Atom provisions while also allowing for Atom-provisions to be auto-bonded (distributed directly to the validators bonded stake) is -problematic within DPoS. Fundamentally these two mechnisms are mutually +problematic within DPoS. Fundamentally these two mechanisms are mutually exclusive. If there are Atom commissions and auto-bonding Atoms, the portion of Atoms the reward distribution calculation would become very large as the Atom portion for each delegator would change each block making a withdrawal of rewards